1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 30 May 2019 b. Date Received: 3 June 2019 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The current characterization of service for the period under review is general (under honorable conditions). The applicant requests an upgrade honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, after having a broken foot and being transferred to a new unit, boredom set in and things went downhill. There was no training or duties to perform. The applicant also contends there was a request to go into another military occupational specialty, but the request was denied. The applicant further contends there was good service prior to the broken foot. In a personal appearance conducted on 18 March 2021, and by a 5 - 0 vote, the Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. Please see Section 10 of this document for more detail regarding the Board's decision. (Board member names available upon request) 3. DISCHARGE DETAILS: a. Reason / Authority / Codes / Characterization: Misconduct (Minor Infractions) / AR 635-200 / Chapter 14-12a / JKN / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 22 June 2005 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 14 June 2005 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: The applicant failed to be at his appointed place of duty on three different occasions; willfully disobeyed a noncommissioned officer on two different occasions; was disrespectful to two noncommissioned officers; violated the company SOP; and lied to the Commander, First Sergeant, and Senior Drill Sergeant. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 15 June 2005 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 16 June 2005 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 7 October 2004 / 5 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 20 / HS Graduate / 103 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-2 / None / 8 months, 16 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: NA e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: None g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: FG Article 15, dated 3 June 2005, reflects the applicant failed to go at the prescribed time to his appointed place of duty on three separate occasions; disobeyed a lawful order on or about 12 May 2005; was disrespectful in language to a noncommissioned officer on two separate occasions; disobeyed a lawful order on or about 10 May 2005; disobeying a lawful order issued by the Company Commander on three separate occasions; and making false official statement with intent to deceive on two separate occasions. An undated, unsigned Summarized Article 15, reflects the applicant failed to obey a lawful order and failed to go at the prescribed time to his appointed place of duty on or about 5 April 2005. There is no punishment listed. The applicant was counseled on multiple occasions for various acts of misconduct. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Mental Health Status Evaluation, dated 24 March 2005, reflects the applicant was to be hospitalized as soon as practicable as a psychiatric inpatient at Palo Verde Hospital. The applicant was cleared psychiatrically for any action deemed necessary by command. The applicant was diagnosed with Adjustment Disorder with Depressed Mood. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 283 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: None submitted with the application. 7. STATUTORY, REGULATORY AND POLICY REFERENCE(S): a. Section 1553, Title 10, United States Code (Review of Discharge or Dismissal) provides for the creation, composition, and scope of review conducted by a Discharge Review Board(s) within established governing standards. As amended by Sections 521 and 525 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020, 10 USC 1553 provides specific guidance to the Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records and Discharge Review Boards when considering discharge upgrade requests by Veterans claiming Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI), sexual trauma, intimate partner violence (IPV), or spousal abuse, as a basis for discharge review. The amended guidance provides that Boards will include, as a voting board member, a physician trained in mental health disorders, a clinical psychologist, or a psychiatrist when the discharge upgrade claim asserts a mental health condition, including PTSD, TBI, sexual trauma, IPV, or spousal abuse, as a basis for the discharge. Further, the guidance provides that Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records and Discharge Review Boards will develop and provide specialized training specific to sexual trauma, IPV, spousal abuse, as well as the various responses of individuals to trauma. b. Multiple Department of Defense Policy Guidance Memoranda published between 2014 and 2018. The documents are commonly referred to by the signatory authorities' last names (2014 Secretary of Defense Guidance [Hagel memo], 2016 Acting Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness [Carson memo], 2017 Official Performing the Duties of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness [Kurta memo], and 2018 Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness [Wilkie memo]. (1) Individually and collectively, these documents provide further clarification to the Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records when considering requests by Veterans for modification of their discharge due to mental health conditions, including PTSD; TBI; sexual assault; or sexual harassment. Liberal consideration will be given to Veterans petitioning for discharge relief when the application for relief is based in whole or in part on matters relating to mental health conditions, including PTSD; TBI; sexual assault; or sexual harassment. Special consideration will be given to Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) determinations that document a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment potentially contributed to the circumstances resulting in a less than honorable discharge characterization. Special consideration will also be given in cases where a civilian provider confers diagnoses of a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment if the case records contain narratives supporting symptomatology at the time of service or when any other evidence which may reasonably indicate that a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment existed at the time of discharge might have mitigated the misconduct that caused a discharge of lesser characterization. (2) Conditions documented in the service record that can reasonably be determined to have existed at the time of discharge will be considered to have existed at the time of discharge. In cases in which a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment may be reasonably determined to have existed at the time of discharge, those conditions will be considered potential mitigating factors in the misconduct that caused the characterization of service in question. All Boards will exercise caution in weighing evidence of mitigation in cases in which serious misconduct precipitated a discharge with a less than Honorable characterization of service. Potentially mitigating evidence of the existence of undiagnosed combat related PTSD, PTSD-related conditions due to TBI or sexual assault/harassment as causative factors in the misconduct resulting in discharge will be carefully weighed against the severity of the misconduct. PTSD is not a likely cause of premeditated misconduct. Caution shall be exercised in weighing evidence of mitigation in all cases of misconduct by carefully considering the likely causal relationship of symptoms to the misconduct. c. Army Regulation 15-180 (Army Discharge Review Board), dated 25 September 2019, sets forth the policies and procedures under which the Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to review the character, reason, and authority of any Servicemember discharged from active military service within 15 years of the Servicemember's date of discharge. Additionally, it prescribes actions and composition of the Army Discharge Review Board under Public Law 95-126; Section 1553, Title 10 United States Code; and Department of Defense Directive 1332.41 and Instruction 1332.28. d. Army Regulation 635-200 provides the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. (1) Chapter 3, Section II provides the authorized types of characterization of service or description of separation. (2) Paragraph 3-7a states an Honorable discharge is a separation with honor and is appropriate when the quality of the Soldier's service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate. (3) Paragraph 3-7b states a General discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions and is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. (4) Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct. Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, and commission of a serious offense, to include abuse of illegal drugs, convictions by civil authorities and desertion or being absent without leave. Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impractical or unlikely to succeed. (5) Paragraph 14-3 prescribes a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under this chapter. However, the separation authority may direct a general discharge if such is merited by the Soldier's overall record. (6) Paragraph 14-12a, addresses minor disciplinary infractions, defined as a pattern of misconduct, consisting solely of minor military disciplinary infractions. 8. DISCUSSION OF FACT(S): The Army Discharge Review Board considers applications for upgrade as instructed by Department of Defense Instruction 1332.28. The applicant's AMHRR record of service, the issues and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable. The applicant states after having a broken foot and being transferred to a new unit, boredom set in and things went downhill. There was no training or duties to perform. The applicant contends there was a request to go into another military occupational specialty, but the request was denied. The record does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command and all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. The applicant contends there was good service prior to the broken foot. The applicant's service accomplishments and the quality of service will be considered according to the DODI 1332.28 by the Board. 9. BOARD DISCUSSION AND DETERMINATION: a. As directed by the 2017 memo signed by A.M. Kurta, the Board considered the following factors: (1) Did the applicant have a condition or experience that may excuse or mitigate the discharge? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor, a voting member, reviewed the applicant's DOD and VA health records, applicant's statement, and/or civilian provider documentation and found applicant has been diagnosed with Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD) and Depressive Disorder NOS that could mitigate the basis for separation. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found that the diagnoses of GAD and Depressive Disorder NOS were both made while applicant was on active duty. Also, GAD is 70% SC by the VA. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? Partially. It is the opinion of the Board's Medical Advisor, after applying liberal consideration, that the applicant has two BH conditions, GAD and Depressive Disorder NOS, which mitigate some of his misconduct. As there is an association between anxiety, depression and avoidant behaviors, there is a nexus between the applicant's diagnoses of GAD and Depressive Disorder NOS and his three instances of failing to report. GAD and Depressive Disorder NOS, however, do not mitigate the applicant's offenses of failing to obey orders, being disrespectful, violating company SOP or lying to one's superiors because oppositionality, disrespectfulness, violation of established rules and lying are behaviors which are not characteristic of applicant's BH conditions. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? No. Despite the Board's application of liberal consideration, the Board considered the opinion of the Board's Medical Advisor, a voting member, that the available evidence did not support a conclusion that any of the applicant's medical conditions outweighed the partially mitigated basis for applicant's separation. b. Response to Contentions: (1) The applicant contends there was a request to go into another military occupational specialty, but the request was denied. The Board considered this contention during proceedings, but ultimately determined that there is no evidence of the Command acting in an arbitrary or capricious manner regarding the denial of applicant's contended request. (2) The applicant contends there was good service prior to the broken foot. The Board determined the applicant's discharge was appropriate because the quality of the applicant's service was not consistent with the Army's standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by military personnel. It brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline. By willfully disobeyed a noncommissioned officer on two different occasions; being disrespectful to two noncommissioned officers; violating the company SOP; lying to the Commander, First Sergeant, and Senior Drill Sergeant; disobeying a lawful order issued by the Company Commander on three separate occasions; and making false official statement with intent to deceive on two separate occasions, the applicant diminished the quality of service below that meriting an honorable discharge at the time of separation. c. The Board determined that the discharge is, at this time, proper and equitable, in light of the current evidence of record. The applicant has exhausted their appeal options available with ADRB. However, the applicant may still apply to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records. The applicant is responsible for satisfying the burden of proof and providing documents or other evidence sufficient to support the applicant's contentions that the discharge was improper or inequitable. d. Rationale for Decision: (1) The Board voted not to change the applicant's characterization of service because, despite applying liberal consideration, the applicant's GAD and Depressive Disorder NOS did not mitigate the offenses of willfully disobeying a noncommissioned officer on two different occasions; being disrespectful to two noncommissioned officers; violating the company SOP; lying to the Commander, First Sergeant, and Senior Drill Sergeant; disobeying a lawful order issued by the Company Commander on three separate occasions; and making false official statement with intent to deceive on two separate occasions that were the basis for applicant's separation. The discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the regulation, was within the discretion of the separation authority, and the applicant was provided full administrative due process. (2) The Board voted not to change the applicant's reason for discharge or accompanying SPD code under the same pretexts, and the reason the applicant was discharged was both proper and equitable. (3) The RE code will not change, as the current code is consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the regulation. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214 / Separation Order: No b. Change Characterization to: No Change c. Change Reason / SPD code to: No Change d. Change RE Code to: No Change e. Change Authority to: No Change Authenticating Official: Legend: AWOL - Absent Without Leave AMHRR - Army Military Human Resource Record BCD - Bad Conduct Discharge BH - Behavioral Health CG - Company Grade Article 15 CID - Criminal Investigation Division ELS - Entry Level Status FG - Field Grade Article 15 GAD - Generalized Anxiety Disorder GD - General Discharge HS - High School HD - Honorable Discharge IADT - Initial Active Duty Training MP - Military Police MST - Military Sexual Trauma N/A - Not applicable NCO - Noncommissioned Officer NIF - Not in File NOS - Not Otherwise Specified OAD - Ordered to Active Duty OBH (I) - Other Behavioral Health (Issues) OMPF - Official Military Personnel File PTSD - Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder RE - Re-entry SCM - Summary Court Martial SPCM - Special Court Martial SPD - Separation Program Designator TBI - Traumatic Brain Injury UNC - Uncharacterized Discharge UOTHC - Under Other Than Honorable Conditions VA - Department of Veterans Affairs ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE AR20190010738 1